This Tuesday, Deputy Vlado Mirosevic (PL) assumed the presidency of the Foreign Relations Commission of the Chamber of Deputies by eight votes to five. He was president of the same body in 2018, but decided to resign due to differences with a sector of the Frente Amplio (FA) over the violation of human rights by the Venezuelan regime, which he describes as a dictatorship, so “returning is revenge for the history,” he jokes.
The parliamentarian from District 1, Arica and Parinacota, and former president of the Chamber, addresses the different impasses of Chile with Argentina and Venezuela, the case of the murder of former Venezuelan lieutenant Ronald Ojeda and his plans in the Foreign Relations Commission. Also, he warns that these are turbulent times both nationally and internationally and recommends “lowering the decibels of the discussion.”
-What plans do you have for the Foreign Relations Commission that you are going to preside over?
-We are in a time of great international turmoil. Chilean foreign policy has been invariable, it has to do with the defense of human rights, democracy, and an open economy. Chile is one of the countries that has the most FTAs in the world. And I am going to maintain the defense of the principles of that foreign policy, where President Boric and Foreign Minister Van Klaveren have been very good. Secondly, it is very important that foreign policy is not used for internal issues, it should not be used for internal issues, it is not for a struggle between the ruling party and the opposition. I’m going to take care of that. The Foreign Relations Commission was always a very republican space, where the foreign policy of the State was defended and was not used politically. I am going to be jealous of that, so that it is not used politically, because I have seen that last now. Coexistence must be recomposed throughout Congress, but even more so on issues that are of State.
-Chile has had several impasses diplomats: friction with the ambassadors of Argentina and Israel, with the Venezuelan foreign minister, with a trans-Andean minister for Hezbollah, and Jaime Gazmuri was called to inform about the relationship with Venezuela. What is his opinion?
-I think we are in a moment of international unrest and global reactions. What has happened in Chile also happens in many other parts. The world is under many tensions. Us too (…), there is always friction, but I think we have to try to lower the decibels a little. Within Chile and also in the international community. I think the Government has done well in foreign policy. Chile has been a serious country in that and has maintained its tradition. Although we are a small country, it is a country that is looked upon with a certain admiration. We have to know how to maintain that. Regarding those particular difficulties that you mention, we have to have a State policy on this. I’m going to support that. Alberto van Klaveren is a tremendous chancellor, he has experience, he knows what he does, but we have had a turbulent time. Although it seems that the spirit of the times is convulsed, the principles of Chile’s foreign policy remain. The tension over Israel and Palestine is happening in all countries. Look at what the United States pointed out (with Iran). I believe that President Boric has put a stamp on foreign policy, but he has continued a tradition.
-What is that seal?
-His hallmark is that he has placed an emphasis on the defense of human rights; in concern and action regarding climate change; the protection of the oceans. That comes from before too, with Michelle Bachelet and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is within the framework of the principles that Chile has always defended: human rights, democracy, economy, well-being, they are not new principles. He puts an accent on it.
-The Minister of Security of Argentina, Patricia Bullrich, said that Hezbollah’s presence has recently been seen in Iquique, next to her district, Arica. You have seen it?
-These are statements or information provided by a minister from a country other than ours. And while our own intelligence or security authorities do not raise a real alert on this issue, it is not information that we can confirm. Therefore, we cannot take them as true, because our authorities in charge of security have not raised that alert. Until now they are statements from one person, from a minister from another country. There is no information that we can take as real.
-In relation to Venezuela, do you believe that the kidnapping and murder of former lieutenant Ronald Ojeda was an organized work from Venezuela, as indicated by the prosecutor in charge of the investigation?
-I stick with the words of prosecutor Barros, where he ruled out some hypotheses. And he put forward a hypothesis, which is the one that has predominated in the research. Who was the last link in the chain to request it? Don’t know. We couldn’t know. All I’m saying is that regarding Venezuela and its willingness to collaborate, you simply have to see it to believe it. The Government of Venezuela has to show with actions that it is truly interested in collaborating to clarify this. And we will be seeing how Venezuela collaborates or not. We know what dictatorships are like, regardless of political color. Many times they have no limit. But this time they have shown their willingness to collaborate with the investigation, regarding the suspects. Seeing is believing, I say, and let the Prosecutor’s Office do its job.
-Do you think Chile should retain Ambassador Gazmuri indefinitely, wait for gestures of cooperation from Venezuela and return him, break relations completely or take another diplomatic measure?
-No. Regarding breaking relationships, beyond the fact that many of us might like that option, everything indicates that it is not the best alternative. Experts and former foreign ministers have said one thing very clearly: if we break relations with Venezuela, we distance the possibility of collaboration. Or that, for example, there is an extradition. We need a voice from Chile that is in Venezuelan territory, in this case an ambassador, who is putting pressure on the Government of Venezuela in all ways. If we break relationships, that ends, that communication. Therefore, it is not the most responsible or the best. Ambassador Gazmuri was ambassador to Brazil, he was a senator, he has experience and recognized political ability. We sent one of the best to do the job in Caracas. He is going to stay in Chile for a while, but, as the surrogate minister (of Foreign Affairs, Gloria de la Fuente) has already said, he will soon have to return to doing precisely these jobs. We have to increase expulsions and we have to continue pressing regarding the investigation into Ojeda. Let the ambassador do his job. Clearly, he can have good results in his efforts, despite the difficulties. Gazmuri has to return within the times set by the Government.
-What do you notice about the Venezuelan Government’s willingness to collaborate that you mention?
-Well, let’s see, we still have not had any sign, beyond the declaration of the Foreign Minister of Venezuela, Yván Gil, of absolute collaboration to find the suspects of the kidnapping and homicide. Or from the words of the attorney general of Venezuela. Beyond these statements, there is still nothing concrete. I stick to seeing is believing. But, otherwise, if these are indeed just words and nothing happens, Chile will have to take this to the appropriate international bodies. This is a crime that cannot go unpunished, because it is a very sensitive crime for Chile, which, prosecutor Barros already said, would be recorded from Venezuela, we do not know why yet. And if we do not see collaboration from Venezuela, it will have to be escalated in international organizations and bodies. At the moment, we have to see what Venezuela’s demonstrations are going to be.
-What international organizations could we go to?
-I would not rule out any of them, nor would I get ahead of myself, because today Chile has managed to put this situation, this complaint, in the eyes of the world, and get Venezuela to take a first step of good disposition, of collaboration, and we will see how far it goes. and it remains to be seen what Venezuela is going to do. I think we have to press in all ways, and we will see if it is fulfilled or not, if there is a real good disposition, with facts, with actions.
-Deputy Daniel Manouchehri (PS) proposed banning the entry of Venezuelans for 24 months and restricting remittances from Venezuela in response to the criminal acts. Do you share it?
-Having great appreciation for Deputy Manouchehri, I believe that we must study the consequences that this may have. I don’t know if I would like the United States, regarding the wave of robberies in houses where there are Chileans, for Washington to say we are going to cut off their Visa Waiver or, worse still, we are going to prohibit the entry of any Chilean to the United States. I don’t know if it would be fair for someone to do that to us. I would say that this measure should be studied, I would not rule out any first. I think that in this case, Chile needs, with respect to organized crime gangs, intelligence to disrupt them. Other measures, I don’t know how much they help. What I do want to say is that Chile has already exceeded its capacity to receive migrants. I do agree on that. We had about 1 and a half million migrants in Chile.
-In relation to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, what initiatives can the Foreign Relations Commission adopt?
-Here it is very important, first, to adhere to international law and the resolutions that the United Nations, for decades, has approved, by a very large majority, that are favorable to the Palestinian people, and that unfortunately Israel has not heeded those UN resolutions. , of the General Assembly, and of the Human Rights Commission. We have to adhere to international law, we have to ensure, for example, one very important thing, which is that the civilian population does not have to pay the consequences of this conflict with famine, with murdered children, murdered women, innocent civilians. There we, as a Commission, have to remain attached to international law. What is happening in Gaza is a massacre against civilians that is obviously outside international law. The shortage of water experienced by the civilian population in Gaza, or the fact that humanitarian aid is not allowed to enter, is completely outside the law. Therefore, we have to be tough in this and Chile has been attached to international law.
-And what is your opinion of Hamas?
-Hamas is a terrorist group, there is no doubt in my mind. My defense of international law and this solidarity with the Palestinian people does not at any time make me lose sight of the atrocities of this group, in the latest attacks, for example, that they carried out against Israel, that was a terrorist act, which also attacks to the civilian population indiscriminately. Therefore, we also have to be very tough about that, about the hostages, who are the civilian population. If we adhere to international law, we can be fair regarding these types of events.
-What is your view of Iran’s bombing of Israel in response to the attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria?
-I have been critical of that bombing. Iran is a threat to regional security, but also global. I share the position that the Chilean Foreign Ministry has had, or the position of the OAS. Iran is a theocracy run by extremists and I believe it is a real security threat. On the other hand, I am glad that the United States has ruled out being part of an action that Israel could take, because that could only escalate the conflict and I believe that, in the face of that, that should be our great concern: that this does not continue. climbing, because it can end very badly.
-What effects could an escalation of war between Iran and Israel have for Chile?
-Not only for Chile, let us remember that here there is a kind of Cold War between the two, for decades Iran and Israel have been archenemies and have been in a situation of permanent tension. These attacks are unprecedented, it is the first time it has escalated so much. I would say that the consequences could be dramatic, with the entire world. The world does not need another war, since what is happening in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is terrible and has had an impact on the world.